Tobacco Documents Online

i s:.a ac ov n:;~^ e!`for°tn build iuto school currieula s,o, isLicatr9 inoruluti.or:s-a~.ain,:t.-nociiai-pressures-to-sm,oR,e rroFrexs ?'n lieu of the frequevtly uzea liiF19 fear arousal, infor:netion ec:3t.e.re9 prvsrarr•s„ vhicla c:ay uell even be counter- nroce:ct i . e 5

~PERCENT ,~GE OF STUDENTS VYMO REPORT S0,.1E 'frtnOK'fNG FULL PP,GGRIa,M lQ'.c fi ESTIN'G - 04 CONTROL ~ ~ . C O

TiiRcB YI::AR LOi9GPfUfiIWAL STUGY iOCli•L-i SYCIiOLOGICAL UC'f GRRE:.TS 4!I' Sf9OKING IN SC1IOOLS PRA7ECf in Sa liaa 12 ( 3.=~] ~ - - - - - ------ -",_-_' :iar:_cnoi:crc ;; c,urlcnenta~ •.Iln rd-core • . ~ `~t:;Ui;crs S:71o1{ers ' :7=1: !=t'" I =iu 1'I!;l'Rr 3. ~ 1,1a1`"S s Cf I: .aJl.1F't

Tllltl:f; 1'1i:11t IA.';:(;I'fURl:+.il. STI111Y W(;IAI.-I'SYCII(1Lt'G1CA1. I11 Il;la;i:-V(ti (11 ;.'4(tAI?;G IN s(;IU)QLS I'1tiUI:CT / I'~.°;tlliag~ I tiic s:: :.f the sc:.•ona year O.` `.he ^'LAY'.v 1977-197R. , . _ _ :I.1y 1978 Lr_._..,, ol ! Inrlui~n:cil not t4S:rpW) ',. I!ij IU ~ iiL _ ?Ir~Rt!: ^ . ' F ~'~ ~.:nsi '.r ol'rh-emdr.i +.ntcrcirnc nc, ~~:~xr in`lu~ ^e c° ilit^~c-_ ion ~'t:it.;ics r--~~"'Z 1LF1 n ra•1•49 5a7)LL' f=G1) A ..W?Pt5 ?Jl t-hF Il.l). O•'(•.11T1^nt f;IiCa~.]C11 {C11C7.:I:u` ..

Tiic.^e r°s:ait.s sugF.esL that such i':,Lerven:tions may prove more usef'ul in deterring smoking amcng j,unior high students than nerely i.^structir.g thea im the Song-term d'angers of smoking. 1+: longitudinal study initially involiving approximately L „500 students ispresently underway trackin~g these students throuCh che seventh, eig"th, and nintc grades. Througti its second year, preliminary data analysis suggests a significant.impact of the izterventions. (.See Figure 2).. Thc saliva srecimens_of a random sample. of forty-five (.L5) sevent.': Erade students in the study were analyzedi for ni.cotine c(,ntent by a:aa;s spectrometric technique developed by Dr. Evan Horni:,g, 3ay].or College of Ftedicine.5tudents were representa- tive o^ nonsmokirng,, "'experimental" smoking, and "regular" smoking,g su'- :^'ps within our larger study directed at preventSng the omset of acdictive, smoking i.n~ adolescents. Results of the analysis shoaed that nonsmokers had less nicotine than "experimen- "secos.d-hand" smoke" -- influence of others who smoke. ith , this mean of'3.53, nicotine levels of up to 10 ppm were observed in the sali.a of the averare subject from each of these. respective r,roups. Evrtr t,houga 10. levels of nicotine were observed in nion- sr..okers,, 11.e . presence of any nicotine represents the effects. of t.al" and "repular" smokers with 3'•53,, 5•07, and 1li:96 ppm of nicotine in c_.roup.) See Table 3. This may be one of the most extensive derrnnst-ations of how ^ "passive smoking'° or "second- hand snoke" does, indeed., effect the nonsmoking adolescent. 4 O-

auci ive'w ttrruutli tlieeeco C :>•:mr of a three-year longituc:ir.al study which wi11 follow sl.udents tlirough the. seventh,, eirht2i, nnd n:nth Eradet,J rredi~cated on the following theoretical notion: =f c..udents aan 'oe "nursed"'throurh the particularly .vulnerable- to-_,ociel-pressures-to-sm.oke jumi:or high school years, they u•ill be .^crtif4 led' suffi:i'e:ntly so tha.t the heavy, addictive Fmoking .hdch is generally first found as students progress in~to high school„ will less likely occur.By then,, students may be' more Rates of' oaset of smoking in the full treatment,, the feedback,, rLia:.ly a m:ximalily cost effective strategy to deter smoking. This is in contrast to small-group face-to-face training which has the disadvantage of not being readily exportable to other locales, v,:rilec considerably in how skillfully it is executed, and cannot b.e too easily stasdariz.ed for evaluation purposes. To. amplify our methods and res'ults., first a ten-week invc•st.ig,at°on wcus eeicplleted with 750 male and female studqnts cnterinf• se•:entli grade. . . indenendent,, and may be Iess Like4y to respoad.to these social ;.res:crec to bc.:i'r smoklng. .•e xould encoura.re the development of programs vhich~ use fii-s and related reinforcers (posters, etc.) and feature scenes of the students themselves demonstrating how they say "no" to pressa:res to smuke rather than authority figure adults presenting high fear arousal mcssare_. Such:an approach also may be poten- anr3 the test.ing,onLy groups were significantly lover than the onset rates in the pretest-single posttest control groups. (See FiCure 1). 3 f

C ..s a, sociai psycholorist ad,rr•:::sing himself increasingly to the problem,s of the prevention and control of cnrd'icvxscular d'iscase particrslarly at the moment, smoking, it vould appear to me that nn ir.•portant direction in uhicl; we m:ght Be is to fosterr iin_^_clation stsategies--which involve trainiug chi]ldren to re:sist the social pressures to begin smoking or advance toward frequent, addictive smoking. . Our current fi~ndings in our NHiBI-supported.investigation. ~..iirfes~t that :ear arousal may be ineffective in anti-smoking mes- :aRen L.o children. By the time they reach the seventh grade, even th,ough virtually all children believe smoking is dangerous„ m=_n: begi:n sE ckinc, anyway. Dnr in-depth, intervievs uith a. large populaSio:: of seventh graders„ sug€,est that, individually or col- lectively, peer pressures, models of'smoking parents, and the mass ,n^di+ (e.g., cigarette compan}• advertisins)' ^a, o-jerride tae .,. c:elirf of cYildren that smckin.g ie danF.erous. Aecent"exrlorations of this problem at Stanfor3' and! A1'innes.ota corroborate our findings• Furthermore, we now have some evidence taat in a.ddition to Chi]dren are r.,ore likely to focus on the pre:sent., Smoking control mes:.~es shou4d emphasize more immediiate effects of smoking on the T: n+; in,, t'hay focus too much on, the future daa~r,ers of smoki!ng.4E'{. szno'r.:inq messages in schools fall into a"time perspective." trap.: dependiing too heavily on fear as a deterrent to saokiag, anti- ehild :~r tecnagcr. Yle are usinp, an inocxilation-against-pressures-to-smokec strategy (seemingly quite effective first in a ten-ueek pilot

of 9'cctim: , •fo ke Presented To The U.mit.ed' Stat.: ~•:,rate ::cb-Com,ci.ttee cm llicalth c:T iday 25, 1978 E}•: R'ichard 1. Evans,, Flr,.D. Professor of °'sychology Ur.fversiltc of' Nouston Houston, Texas ( Dr. :•ans is al'sc Directo- of the Emoking 5ection of tt:e Baylor Col.le;e of t'edicine Y.atiorna: lieart end Blood Vessel R'esearch an d Lren.c:'stration Center„ ]louston, Texas and is Principal IinvestiCator o: t`.^ N'HL?I-sLpported Sociial Psychclop,ical Dete.:-rents to ScroY.°nb in Sc:ioois Project) .. . Social psycholoC:sts have traa'itionally been en5age3 in :airly basi: iaL,crntory reseerc.h dealir,6 ci`h theoretical ar,d s.ethocuolo- r ic•2.= issues.. During the past. several years, hok'ever, they have. 4e_•n. increasingly chalienieed to develop and e,valuate interver.ticnss re'_ati:g ta sivr:iPicar.: sccial problems such as :ental illness pre,}•.~3ice _nd discrir..ination,, poverty, cri~me„ and delinquency. A m~~re r•_cer.t ci,allenr,e for soc•Jal psychologists lins been be:havioral -rrc'iri,aa, ;::rticuia::iy as it rela*.°s to modif;,,in,C life styles uhieh contribute to mor'uidity and mortality'. Conirol of cigarette smol:inF,uhich has LePn well established as a.cri:cial "risk factor" in cardiovascular disease and cancer i.s a partic;:larly sigpificant area c° behavioral investi.gation. Although the previous focus has 1^-en upnrn the addicted adult smoker, a more fruitful line of i'n:r¢;:iration might be to address tLe more fundamental prc!biea of d•:tr,,:•-inF, the unisct of smoking, healinq, +:ith, children whe are srab- .o ficcLc•i to social prea:.,res to initiatt smokin,r, tel:,avi'or presents a.di fer^r::t set cf t.`,eoretical and.methodological issues than thos=_ encountered ir, attempts to alter the behavior of the already ti~dict,edl smoker.